Sunday Mailbag

This is the first week in a long time we've had more letters about the Democrats than about the Republicans.

Politics: Fascism Watch

S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, writes: I get that you don't want to engage in New York Post-style exaggeration with Donald Trump, but I sometimes find your explanations for his actions as almost naive and overly optimistic. I don't believe for a second that Trump's invasion of first L.A. and then D.C. are just his distractions of the day and throwing red meat to the base. Or that, "We do not think Trump aspires to be a dictator, per se, with the title and the lifetime tenure, etc."

Are you not paying attention? That's exactly what Trump wants to be! "President for life," like his heroes Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong-Un. Literally every move he's made, from going after law firms, universities, judges, media, government employees, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, books and schools, museums and the arts, perceived enemies and past opponents; to transforming the White House into his own personal golden palace, is in service of that goal. It could not be any clearer that he's following the How To Be a Dictator for Dummies playbook.

Invading L.A. and D.C. aren't distractions. They are practice for the large-scale invasions to come. I fully expect some kind of "terrorist" attack before the midterms "forcing" Trump to declare martial law and "postpone" the election. Just before he "finds" a loophole in the Constitution that, of course, allows him to run for a third term. This Supreme Court will probably agree even before it adds another one or two Trump-appointed judges. That's assuming Congress hasn't already expanded the number of seats on SCOTUS to give him an absolute majority and/or changed the law allowing him to become a de facto President-for-Life.

Meanwhile, watch as he continues corrupting state election systems to make sure only those loyal to him are counting the vote and declaring the winners. He only needs a few states to guarantee the results he wants. And with each win his hold on power becomes deeper and stronger.

Who's going to stop him? Republicans? The Supreme Court? That ship has sailed. Democrats? The media? Don't make me laugh. Their passive silence has done more to enable and normalize him than anyone!

I appreciate that you don't want to be alarmists, but let's not put on blinders to what could not be any more obvious. Trump has every intention of becoming President-for-life, and from my perspective, he's doing a hell of a job making that a reality. Taking this to its logical conclusion, I fully expect myself and many reading this to end up in "re-education" internment camps where we'll be lucky to survive.

History has shown us over and over how quickly democracies can be replaced with dictatorships. Not learning that lesson now is at our own peril.

---

V.M. in Wilmington, DE, writes: I know we're in an era where facts seem to mean little to nothing, but still I wonder why the governors of Ohio, Tennessee, Louisiana and South Carolina are sending their states' National Guard troops to DC. 10 minutes on the Internet seems to show that Cincinnati, OH; Memphis, TN; New Orleans, LA; and at least 8 counties in South Carolina have murder rates higher than DC's. Why aren't those governors deploying their National Guard soldiers at home?

---

J.W.L. in Washington, DC, writes: Responding to: "We are grateful to have ANY heads-up that readers might send to items@electoral-vote.com."

A passage in Heather Cox Richardson's Facebook/Substack account yesterday has an angle I haven't seen elsewhere:

The crackdown in Washington, D.C., seems to have far less to do with combating crime in a city where crime rates are at a 30-year low than it does with demonstrating that the administration controls the capital, the seat of the U.S. government. As conservative lawyer George Conway... put it: "If you want to have a coup against the constitutional order, you want to control the capital city. And if he has control of the policing in the city of Washington,... how do you stop him? Who's gonna tell him to leave the White House?"

This is a chilling thought, but is Donald Trump really capable of planning as far ahead as January 2029? That D.C. is directly under federal control and is therefore a logical site for him to try this gambit has to be relevant. We shouldn't discount, however, his instinct for power—a knack that most successful authoritarians surely possess. Nor should we discount the work that dozens of his immediate subordinates can do to implement his directives.

It remains to be seen how thoroughly, and how long, he exercises this "control." Wednesday evening, I walked home about 2 miles through the heart of the city—from 6th and D streets NW (Navy Memorial area) to near 20th and T streets NW (Connecticut and Florida avenues)—and didn't see a single National Guard soldier or vehicle.

---

D.H. in Boston, MA, writes: I follow people smarter than me on Bluesky for political news, and one of them noted that if the regime is looking to normalize FBI investigations on political opponents, John Bolton is a near-ideal choice to start with. Republicans won't defend him because he's critical of Trump, and Democrats won't defend him because he's a conservative.

---

T.G. in Fort Worth, TX, writes: R.J. in Chicago asked about Fox and the right-wing echo chamber. I recommend watching The Brainwashing of my Dad" on Amazon. It is a documentary of the filmmaker's father, and his radical change from a Democrat to a fire-breathing right-wing fanatic after his immersion into talk radio and Fox News. Lots of interviews with some of the players that drove that machine, as well as with experts in brainwashing and psychology. It will unfortunately give R.J. and friends pause. A co-worker of mine had to pause partway through to grab an adult beverage to complete the viewing. This case had a happy ending, which gives hope at the end of a rough ride.

---

J.B. in Bend, OR, writes: Many readers here have asked (or wondered quietly) "Wes, Trump's actions are bad, but what can I do?" Here's Robert Reich explaining what individuals can do. A summary:

1. Call your Representative or Senator and express how you feel. 5calls.org provides useful information on how to frame your statements.
   
   
2. Attend town halls and participate. Indivisible.org provides information on when and where they will be.
   
   
3. Join local resistance groups and follow up with them after a public act of resistance or freedom of expression.
   
   
4. Boycott companies that support Trump or fail to oppose him. I'll add that you should also send them a letter. Boycotting is silent and takes a while to register. Sending an e-mail is okay, but a letter is much more effective and attention-getting because it tells them that you feel strongly enough to take the time to write it out and mail it -- it seems small, but a physical letter says you feel much more strongly than an e-mail.
   
   
5. Protect the vulnerable by documenting the injustice that you observe—videotape it and report it.

Politics: Other Developments in Trumpworld

K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: All the news outlets report that Ghislaine Maxwell said that she never saw Donald Trump do anything "inappropriate."

"Inappropriate" is a very subjective term. Some parents at my kid's middle school this week were in an uproar because they thought it was "inappropriate" for a new teacher to ask the kids to call him by his first name. Some people think it's "inappropriate" for kids to read a book about two princes falling in love with each other. In both these cases, I would honestly say that I don't see anything "inappropriate".

So, she may be telling the truth there. What would a person who recruits children to be raped by old, rich men consider to be "inappropriate"?

---

D.O. in Eastern Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine, writes: I'm a former soldier and journalist who earned a paramedic certification and decided Ukraine needed my help more than my local fire department did. So, I left my cat with a friend, packed my stethoscope, and went to Ukraine as what I assumed would be a relatively elderly civilian medic (I turned 50 a couple days ago) among a sea of young fighting-aged men in their physical prime.

What I found is that I am squarely in the middle of the age bracket. Most of my patients have been men aged 45-55, often overweight, with all the chronic health problems common to our cohort. These men are buck privates, at an age a decade past when most people retire from the United States' armed forces.

Russia is scraping the bottom of the barrel to recruit money-motivated troops barely one step above being mercenaries (and it shows), while Ukraine is drafting mostly older men who are highly motivated to protect their families and farms (or to re-acquire their farms from Russian occupation). Many have sons that would make up the bulk of the fighting force in the west, but there is apparently a significant effort to keep them OUT of the military, as they are expected to be the future of the country (and to be parents to the future's future).

Of the people under age 35 that I see, around 20 percent are women—mostly in "high-value target" roles such as field medic or drone operator positions. They are, to put it bluntly, utter badasses.

It's a fascinating change from the makeup of the Army when I was a teenage soldier in the 1990s.

---

C.S. in Newport, Wales, UK, writes: I think you have to hand it to Donald Trump. He is really a remarkable politician. I mean have you ever seen Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the EU commission and NATO agree on an important question that quickly and comprehensively?

---

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I would have paid good money to have been in the room when Vladimir Putin read the letter Melania Trump wrote to him, and to have seen the look on his face when he got to this line, "Mr Putin, you can singlehandedly restore [the children's] melodic laughter." Something tells me that if any laughter issued from Putin's mouth, it would be neither melodic or childish. I would also love if the next time Putin is seen, he is wearing one of Melania's "I really don't care. Do U?" jackets.

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: If Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin do have a meeting, and Putin puts strontium in Zelensky's vodka or iced tea, or maybe stabs him in the ankle with an umbrella tipped with polonium, we can always hope Donald Trump gets a little extra thirsty and asks Zelenskyy for a sip, or that some Three Stooges routine works itself out (clearly, Putin is Larry) and the umbrella ends up poking Trump in the eye.

---

M.L. in Athens, OH, writes: You wrote: "To be more precise, a new analysis from Energy Innovation, a nonpartisan energy and climate think tank, predicts that the failure of new supply to keep up with new demand will increase household energy prices by 18% over the next decade, or about $170 a year for the average household."

U.S. energy prices are already rising at twice the inflation rate, and consumers are noticing it.

While Donald Trump's policies on renewables may have a limited impact on the current price increases, the fact is that people are seeing red and casting about for someone to blame. And Trump, who promised to lower consumer prices in his election campaign, stands as the most obvious target for their ire. The Trump administration's slow-walking or blocking renewable projects that could help to alleviate the problem in favor of hydrocarbon projects that contribute both to climate change and the bottom line of wealthy Republican donors will be used against the GOP in the midterms.

---

T.M. in Aldergrove, BC, Canada, writes: Posted to the website of The Guardian, and causing extensive coffee splattering to my monitor: "If you're going to offer bread and circuses, people have got to be able to afford the bread."

Politics: Gerrymandering

M.B. in Menlo Park, CA, writes: Your item about the gerrymander derby included a picture of the front of the flyer sent out by an organization backed by Charles T. Munger, Jr. The front page of that flyer includes a quote by the President of the League of Women Voters of California, which appears to support Munger's opposition to California's redistricting initiative.

If you go the home page of the League of Women Voters of California, you are greeted with this splash screen:

Looking forward to any legal action the League might pursue.

---

R.L. in San Diego, CA, writes: Maybe the potential failure of the California redistricting effort won't sink Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D-CA) ship? Heck, at least he's trying. Even if the measure fails, he'll be able to campaign that even in a very blue California, voters reject this sort of tipping of the scales—as should the residents of every other state. Further, it keeps the gerrymander subject in the news. When Texas signs off on their maps and their story has faded, polling of California's efforts will still be in the news, furthering Newsom's name recognition. It might even light a fire under Texas Democrats to get out and vote, no matter how red their district has been gerrymandered. And it might light a fire under other Democratic voters to do whatever they can to get to the polls. After all, even if the party is in disarray today, voters should understand that at least one chamber led by the opposition can fight the good fight, and try to restore the authority and decision-making that has been usurped from the legislative branch. And given Newsom's recent co-opting of TCF's eX-Twitter style, he'll probably find a way to tweet a loss as a win. Just like someone we know.

---

D.W. in Bloomfield, NJ, writes: I think Gavin needs to call up Arnold and tell him "Look, I agree with you about gerrymandering, and I'm not fighting with Republicans here. I'm fighting fascists, and I think you're on board with that. We need to defeat the fascists first, and then we need to fight for a nationwide ban on gerrymandering. It just won't work if only ethical states are ethical."

Politics: Democrats Hemorrhaging Voters?

M.L. in West Hartford, CT, writes: In "Democrats Are Hemorrhaging Voters Nationwide," you wrote that Democrats may need to focus on "...jobs, wages, and the economy" while reining in the more extreme members of the party because "...the reality is that when some random Democrat yells 'Defund the police.' Republicans pick that up and make that person the face of the Democratic Party."

I see a number of problems with this analysis.

First, it assumes that Democrats are not typically focused on "jobs, wages, and the economy." The reality is that while culture war issues get the headlines, most Democrats spend most of their time running on economic issues in some way, shape, or form. Which leads to my second point. Why does it seem like Democrats are obsessed with culture-war issues? Because the Republicans see these issues as wedges to use to divide the Democratic base, and the media often serve as their accomplices, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Third, why does this work? Because the medium has become more important than the message in American politics. Democrats are too reliant on the traditional media to get their message out. These media sources have less reach than ever, and offer Democrats very limited ability to control the message that is disseminated. Podcasts and social media, by contrast, have a greater reach, and offer parties and campaigns much more control over content, including the ability to target particular messages to a particular demographic; for example, you can bring talking points for African Americans to The Breakfast Club podcast and talking points for young, (mostly white) working class men to The Joe Rogan Experience. Learning to navigate the new media landscape is a much more important project for the Democratic Party than muzzling its members.

As for the Republican demonization of certain Democrats it claims are extreme, I'm not convinced that this tactic is all that effective. Republicans spent decades making Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) one of the faces of the Democratic Party. In that time, Democrats won elections, and they lost elections. I doubt that the demonization of Pelosi had much to do with the outcome of any of them. This example highlights another fact about demonization: Republicans will do it no matter what. Pelosi is the opposite of an extremist, so if Republicans will demonize her, they can and will attempt to demonize anyone if they think it might help them.

If the Democratic Party goes to war with its most committed demographic—women of color—it will tear the Party apart, and only help Republicans, who will go right on demonizing the Party anyway. You may argue that this is not what you were suggesting, but I think that it's telling that all three of the members you suggested as possible candidates for a primary challenge are women of color, and two are Muslims. In order to target the most progressive members of the party, Democrats would have to disproportionately target women of color, thereby hurting the party with the demographic who supports it the most.

Corporate PACs and think tanks might love this plan, but it is unlikely to lead to electoral success.

---

C.W. in East Hills, NY, writes: Two very interesting and seemingly contradictory trends seem to be ongoing. On one side of the ledger, as you pointed, is The New York Times assessment of the sorry state of Democratic registration. The other, which I am not sure Electoral-Vote.com has reported upon (most likely you did but I missed it), is the RNC's huge fundraising lead over the DNC.

Other facts paint a very different picture, however. This side of the ledger has Republicans frightened to hold town halls because those in attendance will scream at them, a president with real and substantial disapproval numbers overall on virtually all issues and personal attributes (possible pedophilia tends to hurt folk's popularity), and Democratic over-performance—and, in most cases, outright wins—in virtually every election this year.

The answer may be that counting how many people have a (D) and how many an (R) next to their names and how much money the DNC and the RNC collect are antiquated measures that no longer tell the story of which way the country is moving.

Perhaps political party labels are even more misleading than decades ago (when we had, for instance, millions of Democrats voting for Republicans in the South). Perhaps changes in technology mean that new ways must be found to assess voter sentiments, just like pollsters who are trying to adjust their approaches.

As a side note, I would respectfully suggest that the headline you had on the piece I referenced above is misleading. "Democrats Are Hemorrhaging Voters Nationwide" is technically accurate, in that party registration is shrinking. However, most people would read that as a loss of actual votes and support on the left. Whether or not that is happening is unclear.

---

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I don't want to dismiss (V)'s alarm over declining Democratic voter registration, because it very well could mean that the Democratic Party is less popular than it used to be and the GOP more popular. But I have an alternative theory. It applies to states with closed or semi-closed primaries, where your party registration determines whose primary you get to participate in.

In a state like Wyoming (and others), where the GOP dominates, the Republican primary becomes the de facto general election. I have always affiliated my primary votes with the Republicans, but in the past decade or two, it's been more about trying to push the Party back towards the center. I don't know if that is, in fact, what's going on here, but I do know that Democratic registration in Wyoming cratered the same time that Liz Cheney was fighting for her career after the 1/6 Committee investigation. It is possible that my fellow moderate Wyomingites, or the more liberal breed (such as they are), are trying to push the opposite party towards something less fascist, not because it will help them win, but because it will help stem the tide. Or maybe they're tired of tilting at windmills in the general and have decided that if they want their voice to really matter, they need to vote in the election that isn't a foregone conclusion.

---

D.A. in Hermosa Beach, CA, writes: I think you gave a very good assessment of things the Democratic party could do to try to turn the tide of losing voters. As a Republican, I would recommend marking up what the Republican party is against as follows:

The Republican Party is fairly homogeneous and it is easy to formulate what it stands for and against. It is for lower taxes, and less government except for a strong military. It is against crime, abortion, immigrants, brown people, gay people, illegal immigration, the LGBTQ+ agenda, DEI, and wokeness.

(V) & (Z) respond: We must observe that "the LGBTQ+ agenda" is... that they want to be treated no differently from anyone else. So, it's pretty hard—one might even say impossible—to argue that a party can be opposed to "the LGBTQ+ agenda" without being opposed to gay people.

---

K.B. in Chicago, IL, writes: You suggested that progressives may be the reason Democrats have lost support with voters. You specifically mention three progressive women of color and suggest that they should shut up.

There are at least two problems with this theory. First, the vast majority of voters have no clue who these people are. They may know the names of their own senators and representative, but they almost certainly cannot name most other members of Congress. Second, this theory assigns no blame to the leaders of the party for the state of the party. The leaders of the party in Congress, the White House, the DNC, and most states are—with few exceptions—from the moderate wing of the party, not the progressive wing.

Is it more likely that voters dislike Democrats because of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris, or because of backbench progressives in Congress who are only familiar to voters who are actively tuned in? Let's assign blame where it belongs—with party leaders who have failed to attract white working-class voters and who saw the party bleed support among voters of color. Scapegoating progressive women of color is convenient for centrists, but it lets party leaders completely off the hook for disastrous election results in 2016 and 2024.

---

J.M. in Albany, OH, writes: The article you reference in Times is, like many recent things in the paper that are geared towards pushing the Democratic Party to the right, a seriously out-of-date indicator. It relies on data gathered in the run-up to the 2024 election, which was clearly a "change" election where a lot of people voted based on specific grievances with Joe Biden and his condition and the undemocratic process by which Harris became his replacement late in the campaign. Polling since the election has shown a wildly-precipitous drop in support for Donald Trump, in particular, and Republicans in general, and support for both the Democratic Party and whatever candidates they offer up is likely to go up substantially in response.

(V)'s centrist prescription to have the party tack right-wing on social issues does not poll well in general (depending on how the questions are asked), and would do little but further de-energize the Democratic base, as Kamala Harris showed with her own tack to the center. This is not going to win elections.

Politics: It's Not Easy to Keep Everyone inside the Democratic Tent

C.J. in Queens, NY, writes: As a young, white man who reluctantly supports the Democrats, telling your left wing to shut up yet again while courting right wing voters would just drive me further away from the Party. This is, seemingly, all the Democrats do. They do literally nothing to excite their base. They just try to appeal to voters further and further right and then act shocked when Democrats don't show up to vote. Most of my social circle and I are just desperate for ANYTHING to cling to. All we want is for Democrats to show any fight, or any desire to actually help people, or to stop taking the people who actually vote for them for granted.

Right-wing voters generally can get behind economic issues similarly to left-wing voters. The Democrats could run on a populist, Bernie Sanders-style platform that tends to be popular among all political stripes. Right now, all I know that the Democrats stand for is "not being Trump" and "making sure the people who give us lots of money are happy." Courting the right AGAIN will just result in them losing like last election. I have no hope the Democratic Party will ever actually do anything at all, beyond make a bunch of geriatrics rich.

Next week, I'm closing on a home in Europe. If there is anything but a massive blue wave in the midterms, I am out. There is no place for leftists in America.

---

T.B. in Centennial, CO, writes: I had been a registered Democrat since I turned 18 years old 30 years ago. Before the 2024 election, I switched my registration to independent. While I consider myself a moderate and am no big fan of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, their support for DEI, gay rights, and trans rights is not why I left the Party. There are two main reasons I left. The first is how the party just pushed Joe Biden off of the ticket and inserted Kamala Harris with no chance for voters to have a say. This did not sit well with me. It was not because I loved Biden, but the voters would have never picked Harris. Her disastrous 2020 campaign more than proves that. The Party should have had some sort or abbreviated primary, or left it to delegates at the convention to decide the best path forward. I felt cheated as a loyal party member.

The second, and biggest, reason I left the Party is because of the Democrats' unwillingness to do what it takes to fight back against Donald Trump and the GOP. I was taught growing up that if you're in a fight with someone who fights dirty and punches below the belt, you better be willing to fight dirty in response or you will lose. The Republicans have proven they have no moral compass and there is no limits to the dirty politics they are willing to employ. In response, all the Democrats have done is cry, whine, and moan about how unfair it is. They need to fight fire with fire and be willing to resort to equally dirty politics.

I have never considered myself a Gavin Newsom fan, but I love what he is doing with gerrymandering the California congressional maps in response to the bullsh** they are pulling in Texas. Personally, I think they should go all-in and draw 52 horizontal districts North to South and go for a knockout sweep like you have suggested. Maybe this would cause the GOP to cool their jets and reconsider their antics. The fact that Newsom is willing to fight fire with fire and willing to throw punches below the belt right back fills me with some hope.

Until the rest of the leadership and Democratic apparatus is willing to do the same, I am out. A Democrat will not get a single dollar from me in this next cycle, and unless they are willing to fight for our democracy with every trick in the book, they will be lucky to get me to show up and vote in 2026. That would make it the first election in my adult life that I will sit out. This, I think—based on the sheer number of friends, family, and colleagues I have that feel the same as me—is more the reason why the Democrats' registration and affiliation is way down. I think this is the same reason the GOP is currently ou fundraising the Dems. Why would I ever give my hard earned money to a party that only knows how to cry and whine about how the bully is not playing fair? If they have any chance of winning in 2026 and 2028, they better learn to fight dirty back or Trump and MAGA will have another big victory.

---

L.S. in Ann Arbor, MI, writes: I was struck that the first three items on the list from Axios of things to do to influence Donald Trump involve remaining silent. I am sickened by the silence of so many influential people who are not speaking against inhumane and unlawful federal policies. While I don't object to your suggestion that elected (and campaigning) Democrats talk about kitchen-table issues rather than trans rights, I will be among those standing up for the rights of trans folk. We the People can't expect elected officials to rescue us from this regime, even if we are overwhelmed with too many things to be angry about. Although few issues rise individually to a level that seems worth making a big fuss over, we are past the point when we should be flooding the streets in protest of the slide toward fascism. Although the resistance is unfocused, there are some who are calling for a General Strike. As I recall the "First they came" poem by Martin Niemöller, it seems we're a couple lines into that poem, and it's not a long poem. A quote that speaks to this is: "Strategically, one misreads the stakes if one takes trans liberation as addressing the peripheral needs of a small group." The sign I carry at rallies these days simply reads, "Protest While You Still Can." If you're not ready to sign a Strike Card (they need 11 million of these), I urge those who are able to attend a protest, rally, or parade this Labor Day.

Politics: Other Thoughts on the Democrats

P.R. in Saco, ME, writes: You wrote: "On the Democratic side, we cannot think of a single policy position that is clearly fear-driven. There is certainly anger on that side of the aisle, but our sense is that the other predominant emotions are something like disdain and annoyance."

I believe you forgot Democrats' primary emotion: anxiety. They are famously hand-wringers. Unlike fear, anxiety is often bedfellows with empathy and compassion: What if They do This, or That, or What if The Other Thing happens? What if, what if...

Anxiety just doesn't lend itself to negative ads as well as fear does.

---

F.S. in Cologne, Germany, writes: GOVERNOR NEWSOM, DON'T USE ALL CAPS! THAT'S EXTREMELY ANNOYING TO ALMOST EVERYONE, SO I HAVE NEVER WRITTEN ALL CAPS AND I WILL NEVER DO IT. HE ALSO HAS TO KNOW WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE TO (!) USE EXCLAMATION MARKS! SO SAD! And it's "pathetic" that he doesn't know how to use quotation marks "correctly". I know all of these things, so people say that I'm a genius. Newsom doesn't even know how to create great maps. (V) and (Z) could create a map with 52 DEMOCRATS and 0 REPUBLICANS (by creating horizontal districts)! That would be a great map, with such a map Columbus would have found the way to India! But Newsom's map is much "worse"! Thank you for reading my "brilliant" thoughts. Your favorite reader, F.S. in Cologne

---

L.R.H in Oakland, CA, writes: T.B. in Winston-Salem wrote that "Someday soon, there will be a viable female candidate for president."

Here's my regular reminder that in 2016, Hillary Clinton won three million more votes than Donald Trump. In any other country, she would have been president. If that's not "viable," I don't know what is.

---

K.T. in Columbus, OH, writes: Say what you like about Reps. Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), but Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) might be the best fighter the Democrats have. We need dozens more like her.

---

M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: You note that Democrats in Missouri have been unsuccessful in recruiting former Major League pitcher Adam Wainwright to run for Congress, but you credit them for "thinking outside the box." Would that be outside the batter's box? Or have they failed because they just didn't make a good enough pitch?

(V) & (Z) respond: Maybe they expected it to be a lay-up, and didn't realize until too late that is a metaphor from the wrong sport.

Politics: A Nation of Immigrants

B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: I would like to add to your proposition that immigrants contribute to America by asserting that, not only do they contribute, but the country was founded by immigrants. For example, among our founders:

• Alexander Hamilton (British West Indies)
• James Wilson (Scotland)
• Robert Morris (England)
• Button Gwinnett (England)
• Francis Lewis (Wales)
• Robert Morris (England)
• John Witherspoon (Scotland)
• James Smith (Ireland)
• George Taylor (Ireland)
• Matthew Thornton (Ireland)
• James Wilson (Scotland)

That doesn't count those whose parents or grandparents were foreign-born, or who were enslaved. Thus, the entire social fabric of the early U.S. was shaped by immigrant communities.

Second, for much of our history, about 15% of residents have been foreign-born. Thus, if you count intermarriages, then about HALF of U.S. residents are either foreign-born or the direct, immediate descendants (children or grandchildren) of foreigners.

Third, America has long viewed itself as a "nation of immigrants," as John F. Kennedy observed in 1958. Other terms have been used as well, such as "melting pot," "salad bowl" and "patchwork quilt."

Contrary to many nations that are founded on similarities between residents (e.g., ethnicity, heritage, language), the U.S. was founded on ideas (e.g., freedom, equality, the rule of law, democracy).

I assert that immigrants are not merely contributors to our nation, but that we are indeed a "nation of immigrants." Yes, there have always been racists, and always will be, but it's hard to deny the above facts. I think Democrats should embrace immigration and immigrants whole cloth.

---

L.S. in Queens, NY, writes: I recommend that the Democratic party use an old Republican slogan: "Compassionate Conservative."

Democrats have immigration compassion:

• Compassion for people fleeing violent governments
• Compassion for people suffering natural disasters
• Compassion for people who live here for decades without breaking the law
• Compassion for war refugees
• Compassion for children brought here

Reject the cruel conservative approach.

---

S.M. in Pratt, KS, writes: I wanted to comment on the second of the three approaches that the Democrats may take on immigration, as you outlined in "A Nation of Immigrants: A Big, Red 'J'." Normally during times of economic distress, the people of this nation are much more willing to listen an anti-immigrant stance. In reading the tea leaves, it is pretty clear that this country is heading towards a period of economic stagnation unless major policy changes are made soon. Despite all of our other political differences, there is one item on the economic front that everyone can seem to agree on: We need to save Social Security.

I know that this might seem like a stretch, but there should be a real connection between immigration and a secure Social Security. As demographers have known for the last two decades, America is on the verge of a population decline. There are more 62-year-olds than there are 18-year-olds. WICHE shows that the number of high school graduates is going to drop for at least the next 16 years. There simply are not enough people entering the workforce to support those retiring. Our current policy of throwing employed persons of working age out the country is only going to make this problem worse. If people can be shown that immigrants help to support our retirement system, rather than draining it, they should become more supportive of those immigrants.

Democrats should be shouting to anyone who will listen that the President's tax bill has just made Social Security's future more dire. While other changes are needed to fix the program, allowing more working-age immigrants into our country can be part of that solution. This can even be seen as a two-fer. It gives a clear message of support for immigration as good policy, and it points out the Republicans' bad policy on Social Security.

---

R.C. in Des Moines, IA, writes: I'm not sure what the best approach is for the Democrats toward immigration, but I feel like they need something akin to Bill Clinton's approach to abortion: safe, legal, and rare. Maybe for immigration it should be safe, productive, and fair?

---

C.K. in Haymarket, VA, writes: There was a country song 15 years back that embraced our immigrant culture:

Maybe it (or something like it) could be used to provide a light-hearted reminder during a pro-immigrant campaign. It is a fun song!

---

S.W. in New York City, NY, writes: Reading the story of R.E.M.'s grandparents' journey to America from Austria via Italy, I offer R.E.M. and readers a very interesting book titled I Seek a Kind Person: My Father, Seven Children and the Adverts that Helped Them Escape the Holocaust by Julian Borger. This book tells the stories of youth whose parents placed advertisements in English newspapers for their Viennese Jewish children to escape the Nazi horrors after the Anschluss. It's masterfully written and although these youth might not have ended up in the U.S., it still shows the terribly tyranny that youthful refugees were escaping in order to survive in the world.

Politics: Legal Matters

E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, writes: In response to the question from J.R. in Auburn, you wrote:

The Interstate Commerce Clause stops states from trying to regulate, or profit from, commerce in OTHER states. States are free to do whatever they want, pretty much, when it comes to commerce within their own states. So, it's fair game to raise fuel taxes (and if that hurts Texas, with its Big Oil, then so be it). And it's fair game to decline to do business with other states. Mississippi does not have an inalienable right to purchase California products, or to book California state employees in its hotel rooms, etc.

While I really like the idea of blue states banding together inflict some punishment on red states for voting for Trump, I think that the Supreme Court would step in to prevent it. Especially this Court, which seems to have no principles whatsoever other than Trumpublicans doing something is always good and Democrats are inherently evil.

Case in point: The weirdest summer job I ever had was working for a Richmond, VA-based environmental group knocking on people's doors to raise money. Yes, I was that guy interrupting your dinner; no, it's not trespassing until you ask me to leave; no, I no longer have any trepidation about knocking on anyone's door; and yes, one of our fundraisers did get bitten by someone's dog but it wasn't bad. I ended up walking a ton that summer through neighborhoods, ranging from the suburbs of DC to areas near Virginia Beach and Hampton Roads, and everything in between. Weird way to see the eastern half of my state.

Our organization was primarily raising money to fight against the importation of trash from New York State (ironically enough, where I live now). The Supreme Court ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause prevented Virginia from restricting or regulating the importation of garbage from New York State (though mostly it was NYC garbage). What kept happening was that large waste management companies would buy up areas of Virginia farmland on the cheap to create miles-long landfills with millimeters-thick liners. Despite the promises of jobs and tax revenue, many people didn't like the endless trucks and river barges full of other people's trash and worried about the potential for groundwater contamination. Even though there were local objections, the companies would find pliant local politicians, "help" them get elected, and pit communities against each other in a race to the bottom. Even after angry citizens booted some politicians out of office, there'd still be a permit or a partially filled landfill.

The effects of the landfill would spill over to other localities that didn't even benefit from it, but towns and the Commonwealth of Virginia had a hard time even regulating a 3-mile-long landfill, let alone getting rid of it entirely. They still tried, but the Supreme Court struck down a lot of the regulations using the Commerce Clause. Nowadays, even though it might be a state saying that it won't buy or sell from Mississippi, for example, I can see this "reactivist" Court twisting itself into 11-dimensional superstrings to strike down an policy blue states tried as a group.

The fundraising job showed that some political issues cut across party lines in strange ways, or at least they used to. At that point, I was actually on the opposite side of the issue from then-Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), who was in favor of sending New York City trash willy-nilly to the Virginia countryside. I would routinely get money from the anti-corporate, environmentalist types, but I would also sometimes get contributions from folks with Bush/Cheney stickers on their car because of the states' rights issue. Strange bedfellows, indeed...

---

T.M.M. in Odessa, MO, writes: You answered a question from M.M. in San Diego about a class action against ICE for damages.

There are two impediments to such a suit being successful.

First, it is somewhat easier to get a class action for an injunction. While a class action for damages is possible, the key issue is whether there are enough common issues. When you are talking about something like a store doing bait-and-switch advertising, there is clearly a common issue. So you can have a class action on whether there was misconduct and individualized determination of damages. When you are talking about false arrests, you are not going to have common issues because the key issue is whether there was probable cause to detain which will depend on the individual facts for each plaintiff.

Second, it is very hard to sue the federal government for civil rights violations. Section 1983 (the primary vehicle for civil rights claims) does not apply to the federal government. Instead, what you have is a Bivens action. The problem is that the Bivens action is a form of legal claim created by the U.S. Supreme Court. And in recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Bivens is basically limited to the specific claims that the court has recognized and has refused to extend it to other civil rights violations. Whether the Supreme Court would hold that Bivens applies to immigration arrests is unclear. More importantly, Bivens only applies to the individual officer, not to the federal government. So you could sue the ICE agent for unlawful arrest, but not the government as a whole (another reason why a class would probably not be certified).

---

A.S. in Detroit, MI, writes: I read "The Supreme Court May Revisit Same-Sex Marriage," and I think you are jumping to some conclusions here. I clearly agree with your opinion that Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would be willing to overturn Obergefell. Alito essentially said he would in his opinion in Dobbs. You assume that Chief Justice John Roberts would be willing to do the same, but I question whether this is the case. Justice Roberts is an institutionalist. He probably thinks this is a decision that is best left to legislatures, but I don't know how quick he would be to overturn a 10-year precedent of his own Court.

That leaves the Trump trio. Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion extending Civil Rights protection to LGBTQ people in Bostock, so I don't think he has a political axe to grind here and would probably be comfortable leaving precedent alone. I don't know about the other two. I also think overturning Obergefell could cause a bigger stir than Dobbs. Dobbs did not affect women who already had abortions. A change of course on same-sex marriage could leave the marital status of many in limbo and would create chaos, with same-sex marriage legal in some states and not others. It is also less of a partisan issue than many imagine. There are plenty of gay Republicans who were politically conflicted over the party's stance on gay marriage and Obergefell gave them cover to return to the fold. The Republicans were happy for this issue to go away and I doubt they want it to resurface. I suspect the Supreme Court will avoid cases on this subject until one comes that they have to take.

---

R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Justice David Friedman was appointed to the Appellate Division by Republican Gov. George Pataki in 1999. Explains a lot about the substance and tenor of his opinion.

I would be surprised if the Court of Appeals did not take this case. The underlying premise that disgorgement is a fine is absurd. Fines are intended as penalties for wrongdoing not necessarily tied to the damage caused or benefit accrued by the wrongdoer. Disgorgement under the New York Executive Law is an equitable remedy intended to deprive the wrongdoer of the fruits of his wrongdoing. Here, the Appellate Division is effectively saying, "You have to give back the money that you earned through your fraud, unless you earned a REALLY HUGE AMOUNT. Then you get to keep it." I don't see the Court of Appeals going for it (though it could go up to the U.S. Supreme Court, since there is a constitutional dimension, and they've already demonstrated that they will ignore the law to benefit Trump).

All Politics Is Local

W.L. in Pasadena, CA, writes: By now, most of the readers of this site will have read about Oklahoma's test for teacher applicants from New York and California to safeguard against "pinko, leftest, socialist" ideology (or, more politely, "Radical Leftist Ideology"). Little do they realize that the New York and California ideologies (and those of a host of other blue states) are secret economic weapons.

I know that this issue is yet another serious challenge to life in the U.S.; However, reading the news made me wonder whether Oklahoma was doing well economically and whether there was any economic measure that largely distinguished the political, social, and philosophical climate. I turned to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data on the Nominal GDP per Capita for 2024. We all have heard that California, if a country, would have had the fourth largest GDP (following the USA, China, and Germany) in 2024, but the GDP per capita is a more precise measure and is largely, to zeroth order, representative of the economic might of a state. The BEA data show that D.C. and six blue states, including New York and California, occupy the top seven (by rank: DC, NY, MA, WA, CA, CT and DE).

Do you know where Oklahoma sits in the BEA list? Number 44! You can probably guess which states lie below Oklahoma (Hint: They are all red states). Even Texas is only at 16 and Florida lies far below at 35. So, in my view, "Radical Leftist Ideology" is a secret weapon that keeps blue states better off economically by providing an open society where creative thinking and opportunity for all is the rule, as opposed to limiting one's right to live and think as they wish.

---

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: In response to S.T. in Asbury Park, there actually was talk a few decades ago about splitting up Wyoming. During the 1980s fossil-fuel boom, Campbell County (one county west of here) talked about seceding from Wyoming. It never went anywhere, largely because it was more of a hissy fit over taxes, or local control, or something or other than it was a real desire to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with the rest of the state. The Nebraska panhandle counties had a similar hissy fit about seceding from Nebraska to join Wyoming, since they were very much closer to Cheyenne than to Lincoln (and honestly, probably had more in common with Wyoming than they did with the rest of Nebraska).

The other factor is that the Constitution specifies that any monkeying around with already-admitted states requires the consent of the state legislatures involved and Wyoming didn't really have anything to gain from letting Campbell County go and much to lose (and no real desire for western Nebraska, the beauty of the Sand Hills notwithstanding). But you are absolutely correct that S.T.'s hypothetical is possible, since it happened at least once before, when Maine was admitted to the union as part of the slave/free-state Senate balancing act in the antebellum era. West Virginia is a similar, but special, case in that a big part of the dispute was what counted as the state legislature when Virginia was in rebellion.

That said, I would support splitting South Dakota at the Missouri River, as the state is largely a marriage of convenience in the first place. Westriver South Dakota has little in common with Eastriver culturally, historically, or economically, and I don't think you'd have much trouble convincing Westriver folks to cut ties. And Eastriver folks probably wouldn't even notice until it was too late. People already joke about having to show a passport to cross the bridge between Chamberlain and Oacoma.

---

A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Believe it or not, Democrats believe they have a shot at TN-O7, because there's a special election to fill it in December. Mark Green (R) resigned in July to pursue his new venture... and not at all because of the scandal facing his family.

Democrats' overperformance in other special elections and Trump's unpopularity creates an opening, even in a red district.

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: Regarding Jesse Jackson Jr. considering a run for his old seat (IL-02), you wrote: "The small fly in the ointment is that Jackson left office—resigned, in fact—because he and his wife were implicated in a bribery scandal, one that eventually led to prison time for both of them."

Three thoughts:

1. You used to get prison time for that?
   
   
2. Bribery? Yawn. How bland. It's 2025. I don't even think that old adage about dead girls and living boys in bed holds true anymore. In 2025, maybe if the person who is flying the Presidential gift plane—the one that a government which sponsors terrorism gave you just because—flies right into two skyscrapers, one filled with veteran orphan nuns and the other with kittens then maybe (and that's a big maybe) you might get probation (but not if you're a racist, sexist, narcissistic, sh**head child-sex-trafficking rapist that "Christians" love because you hate women's rights as much as they do).
   
   
3. Oh, he's a Black Democrat? Yeah, he's fu**ed.

---

M.S. in Westchester County, NY, writes: I live in NY-16 and hold a low-level Democratic Party office in Westchester. I am also an activist in Southern Westchester Indivisible and other similar groups.

I personally have been on the end of solicitations from some of the candidates running against Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) in terms of donations and backing. Lawler's district, NY-17, appears on paper to be a juicy target, but he will be a formidable candidate. He projects a very moderate approach, but has consistently voted for Republican bills. His background as a lobbyist/Republican strategist serves him very well. He is on TV, sounds moderate and has a "sane" Republican image.

In fact, Lawler is going on the offensive about the BBB, touting all the breaks in the bill for middle-income people, like a restoration of the SALT deduction, no taxes on tips, etc. Of course, it is not clear if these tax breaks will be actually relevant when the standard deduction is so high because of the 2017 bill. Even so, the loss of healthcare coverage through Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act and PAYGO reductions to Social Security far outweigh the crumbs served up in the budget bill.

On top of that, NY-17 is no ordinary district and is not easy to categorize, either. The Westchester portion has delivered about 20,000 excess (D) votes to the (D) candidate in 2022 and 2024, only to have them lose in the rest of the district, which has among other populations, a large population of ultra-orthodox Jewish voters. This group is politely known as the "bloc vote." Not all, but many, of these voters will vote based upon the direction of their faith leaders, who are notoriously transactional. Various parts of the district, including Putnam County, are the home of conservative voters.

So a Democratic candidate must have a large turnout in Westchester, work to get some of the bloc vote, and make inroads in the other parts of the district. Not so easy. And many of the candidates are from Westchester, not the other parts of the district. Many have little or no actual political experience.

Democrats have their work cut out for them here.

Gallimaufry

R.G.N. in Seattle, WA, writes: (V)'s explanation of why so many Dutch speak English was fascinating. My introduction to the multilingual capacities of the Dutch occurred 50 years ago, when, my new bride and I honeymooned in Europe as college students using a Eurail pass and staying at youth hostels. I am a blue-eyed Danish American who speaks passable Danish, Spanish, Portuguese, and Japanese and my wife is a Japanese-American French major who cannot speak Japanese.

When our flight landed in the Netherlands, and we first boarded a bus, we had no idea how to pay the fare and assumed no one spoke English, so I tried asking the driver in Danish how to pay. Of course, he couldn't speak Danish, so my wife then asked if anyone spoke French and a Frenchman answered. The Frenchman couldn't speak Dutch, but was able to communicate with a German who also spoke Dutch. I was wearing a somewhat military looking jacket and everyone assumed that I was my wife's NATO serviceman boyfriend from another European country.

A slow French-to-German-to-Dutch conversation between my wife and a patient bus driver started up, and after a while I asked my wife a question in English. The startled bus driver, Frenchman, and German all blurted out in unison, "you speak English!" The bus driver was then able to quickly explain in English that bus tokens were available at every smoke shop and our time in Holland went smoothly after that. Our time in France also went smoothly because as a native speaker of an Indo-European language, my wife's French did not have a Japanese accent. The French loved it! It was also kind of fun watching the startled expressions of Japanese tourists when they asked my wife questions and I answered them.

---

B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: You wrote: "(Z), on the other hand, usually begins work 5-6 hours before the blog goes live."

What? 7:00 a.m. ET = 4:00 a.m. PT, minus 5 hours = 11:00 p.m. PT.

Your day begins at 10:00-11:00 p.m. at night? How do you teach daytime classes?

(V) & (Z) respond: Our target time for publishing the site, not always achieved, is 3:00 a.m. PT. That means (Z) usually starts work between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. PT. The teaching of classes BEFORE writing the blog is one reason that an earlier start time is not plausible.

---

R.S. in Milwaukee, MI, writes: I was amused by the item regarding MSNBC's rebranding. So I googled MSNOW, and found this: msnow.ski.

From its webpage: What is mSnow? It is a synthetic snow surface that allows you to ski, tube and snowboard year-round!

I guess that's a slippery slope.

---

A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: Better the dogs than Donnie Demento:

(Z) responds: As someone who lives with two dachshunds, I can say this comic is completely and entirely unrealistic. There are no dachshunds named "Wally."

The rest is on point, however.

Final Words

C.E. in San Diego, CA, writes: Devoted to Star Wars, these gentlemen were:

If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger